Tales from a lawfirm

[Ooloo]

Originally Posted by alphys [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Abolish private property over 100k in value. If you want to continue extending your reaches you can then instead funnel the excess towards community projects and personal / familial clout so in a few generations it will just be second nature to invest in humanity instead of whatever people are intending to really do with their excess money.... pass it on? seems a little... NEPOTISTIC

That is insane. I'm assuming you're trolling, like whale biologist, and you don't actually believe what you're saying.

I can respect that. Good game.

[imperiouskitten]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"Tax the rich" is just punitive jealousy. The rich already contribute about 70% of all tax revenue. When you increase tax rates on the rich, they just find legal untaxable avenues to invest in and pay fewer total taxes. When you tax them at lower rates, they are more likely to just pay those taxes, and you collect more net tax revenue because they pay an enormous percentage of all taxes.

This is really basic economics.

not really at all. if a highly evolved, highly stratified civilization has .1% of the population personally owning and controlling most of the machinery of the earth, the argument clearly falls apart. We are arriving in time at that civilization. It is clearly not an argument from the personal but one from practicality, much as you might like to make it all about ego wars by framing it in a childish way.

Yes, the rich will have to pay an "unfairly high" share of taxes in a highly stratified future, if your conception of the world is like goo goo ga ga. Epic win. On the other hand, they have to do this because what they own is so insanely valuable that no human being ever should have been declared to "own" so much in the first place, so I wouldn't cry too much for the cruelty of it. "Just desserts" for the vast majority would be a sentence too ugly to write here, so I hardly think it is a wise rhetorical move to bring in fairness.

Luckily, I am pretty sure this post is just bait [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] nobody perceives their civic duty in such a low, self-serving manner as to see everyone around them in the same pathological way no? Some odd norms in play. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[starkind]

More real lawyerquest. Lol.

Serious post.

[Gatordash]

Originally Posted by starkind [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

More real lawyerquest. Lol.

Serious post.

That story has way too many acronyms for my brain to handle while at work at 11p on a Monday.

[starkind]

Originally Posted by Gatordash [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That story has way too many acronyms for my brain to handle while at work at 11p on a Monday.

Basically lawyers doing lawyer stuff they aren't supposed to do and getting found out. And the irony it vindicates the defendant even tho there was shenanigans for sure.

People get greedy. And stupid. Probably just a huge waste of money, time, private and government resources which would have been better spent on a news documentary, if such a thing can even still exist.

Prosecution should just quit lawyering and gone to VICE and signed for the book rights. The outcome would have been better all around and they would probably have been legally in the right. Instead of cringeworthy disbarment territory.

Generalized enough?

[Bardp1999]

Canadian lawyer has the same schooling as American fast food cook. kekeke

[Gatordash]

Originally Posted by starkind [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Basically lawyers doing lawyer stuff they aren't supposed to do and getting found out. And the irony it vindicates the defendant even tho there was shenanigans for sure.

People get greedy. And stupid. Probably just a huge waste of money, time, private and government resources which would have been better spent on a news documentary, if such a thing can even still exist.

Prosecution should just quit lawyering and gone to VICE and signed for the book rights. The outcome would have been better all around and they would probably have been legally in the right. Instead of cringeworthy disbarment territory.

Generalized enough?

Thats pretty messed up. Didn't a woman commit suicide in large part due to the things that went on here? Kinda reminds me of the federal judge audit WSJ did where judges were ruling in favor of the companies they own stock in. Link

[starkind]

Originally Posted by Gatordash [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Thats pretty messed up. Didn't a woman commit suicide in large part due to the things that went on here? Kinda reminds me of the federal judge audit WSJ did where judges were ruling in favor of the companies they own stock in. Link

The suicide was like adultery n stuff. It was like a serious affair. It becoming public later with pic sharing may have contributed tho initially it wasn't like sexual harassment.

Tbqh I out of a sick morbid curiosity researched that some. No one rly talked about it. I don't think it's the reason for the suite at all. Just a footnote at "look at this gross behavior".

As an adendum. I was in a class that was all women and something similar happened minus the suicide afaik, some girl threw a party and ran around naked showing off her "real" Vijay and her classmates all shared the photo around (no I wasn't kewl with it). Needless to say I really hope she didn't kill herself cuz of that. The blizzard lady.

Anyway.. I imagine she went steady or serious did a lot of extramarital kinky. Broke up. Blizzard boyfriend shared revenge pics afterwards. She was ashamed, ruined her marriage, couldn't walk it back. Denied things. Offed herself because of her lack of social support and relentlessly toxic relationship with toxic people in a toxic industry that destroys introverts. Sad really. Outside the perview of the lawsuit and criminality probably. Just more evidence it was a shitty place to work where women were pressured into uncomfortable relationships and sex, however consensual their relationship was purported to be.

No different than basically any company or privileged powerful male in authority I ever had the pleasure of working for tho.

Thx for sharing your link. And spurring my thoughts and ruminations on our fucked up culture lol.

[Nark_Sinseeker]

Originally Posted by Bardp1999 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Canadian lawyer has the same schooling as American fast food cook. kekeke

I studied two years at a US law school and two years at a canadian law school. I have law degrees in both countries now. Canada was more difficult.

US was focused on memorization and understanding material - exams were 'closed book' for the most part and the professors practiced the Socratic 'cold call' method:
"Mr. Sinseeker, stand up. tell us the facts of the case, what was the rule, and what was the holding?"
Everyone did their readings/homework for fear of getting cold called and not knowing the answer in front of your peers. You were graded on participation (upwards of 20% of your grade) People were competitive but more to show-off than anything.

Canada was more focused on accessing information and applying material - exams were almost exclusive 'open book' and posed hypothetical scenarios to apply the rules to. There was less accountability (no cold calling) so almost no one participated in the lectures. no hand raising, no reading of facts. Lots of lecturing and not much conversation. I found it very boring. Maybe thats why I thought it was more difficult. The exams were pretty hard.

Canadian students are cutthroat. The year before I started, students had gone around tearing key pages out of the law books in the library so other students couldn't study properly. That kind of stuff. I preferred studying in the US though I wouldn't want to live/practice there.

[Whale biologist]

Originally Posted by Nark_Sinseeker [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I studied two years at a US law school and two years at a canadian law school. I have law degrees in both countries now. Canada was more difficult.

US was focused on memorization and understanding material - exams were 'closed book' for the most part and the professors practiced the Socratic 'cold call' method:
"Mr. Sinseeker, stand up. tell us the facts of the case, what was the rule, and what was the holding?"
Everyone did their readings/homework for fear of getting cold called and not knowing the answer in front of your peers. You were graded on participation (upwards of 20% of your grade) People were competitive but more to show-off than anything.

Canada was more focused on accessing information and applying material - exams were almost exclusive 'open book' and posed hypothetical scenarios to apply the rules to. There was less accountability (no cold calling) so almost no one participated in the lectures. no hand raising, no reading of facts. Lots of lecturing and not much conversation. I found it very boring. Maybe thats why I thought it was more difficult. The exams were pretty hard.

Canadian students are cutthroat. The year before I started, students had gone around tearing key pages out of the law books in the library so other students couldn't study properly. That kind of stuff. I preferred studying in the US though I wouldn't want to live/practice there.

Do you they make you speak French? Canada is some weird mutt legally.

Is it a mix of English law and European civil law? Barbarians. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]